Bug#1023731: BioC Packages are now clean (one exception with RC bug filed) (Was: Bug#1023731: Any idea why debci picks old versions)

2022-12-08 Thread Andreas Tille
Am Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 06:08:04PM +0100 schrieb Sebastian Ramacher: > It did. Closing. Thanks a lot Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de

Bug#1023731: BioC Packages are now clean (one exception with RC bug filed) (Was: Bug#1023731: Any idea why debci picks old versions)

2022-12-04 Thread Andreas Tille
Am Sun, Dec 04, 2022 at 12:22:53PM +0100 schrieb Sebastian Ramacher: > No, it's not. If you check the logs from r-bioc-htsfilter for example > (https://ci.debian.net/data/autopkgtest/testing/amd64/r/r-bioc-htsfilter/28944996/log.gz), > you see that some packages have actual regressions: The log ha

Bug#1023731: BioC Packages are now clean (one exception with RC bug filed) (Was: Bug#1023731: Any idea why debci picks old versions)

2022-12-04 Thread Sebastian Ramacher
On 2022-12-03 23:10:21 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > Am Sat, Dec 03, 2022 at 10:53:58PM +0100 schrieb Sebastian Ramacher: > > And there are many more. r-bioc-biocparallel is another one. This smells > > like many insufficient dependencies. > > Sorry, this all seems to be the same britney failure P

Bug#1023731: BioC Packages are now clean (one exception with RC bug filed) (Was: Bug#1023731: Any idea why debci picks old versions)

2022-12-03 Thread Andreas Tille
Am Sat, Dec 03, 2022 at 10:53:58PM +0100 schrieb Sebastian Ramacher: > And there are many more. r-bioc-biocparallel is another one. This smells > like many insufficient dependencies. Sorry, this all seems to be the same britney failure Paul was reporting. The tests are all against the versions in

Bug#1023731: BioC Packages are now clean (one exception with RC bug filed) (Was: Bug#1023731: Any idea why debci picks old versions)

2022-12-03 Thread Sebastian Ramacher
On 2022-12-03 21:51:55 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Am Sat, Dec 03, 2022 at 09:34:09PM +0100 schrieb Paul Gevers: > > On 29-11-2022 10:26, Andreas Tille wrote: > > > Now there is only one remaining one which is a real > > > problem which I have reported upstream (see bug #1025045).

Bug#1023731: BioC Packages are now clean (one exception with RC bug filed) (Was: Bug#1023731: Any idea why debci picks old versions)

2022-12-03 Thread Andreas Tille
Hi Paul, Am Sat, Dec 03, 2022 at 09:34:09PM +0100 schrieb Paul Gevers: > On 29-11-2022 10:26, Andreas Tille wrote: > > Now there is only one remaining one which is a real > > problem which I have reported upstream (see bug #1025045). If > > r-bioc-structuralvariantannotation would be removed from

Bug#1023731: BioC Packages are now clean (one exception with RC bug filed) (Was: Bug#1023731: Any idea why debci picks old versions)

2022-12-03 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Andreas, On 29-11-2022 10:26, Andreas Tille wrote: Now there is only one remaining one which is a real problem which I have reported upstream (see bug #1025045). If r-bioc-structuralvariantannotation would be removed from testing I do not see any blocker for the transition any more. I remo

Bug#1023731: BioC Packages are now clean (one exception with RC bug filed) (Was: Bug#1023731: Any idea why debci picks old versions)

2022-11-29 Thread Andreas Tille
Hi again, Am Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 09:32:13PM +0100 schrieb Andreas Tille: > So you want to say, the fact that the current debci results that are > listed on the r-bioc-biocgenerics page are based on packages that are > replaced in unstable and the current packages that are fixed are not > listed w